A. Defendant A’s sentence is too heavy.

B. Defendant E (1) The misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles did not know that a similar act was committed at a business establishment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s intention.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated in the lower court’s judgment as to Defendant A’s assertion and all other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the record, it cannot be deemed unfair because the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Judgment 1 on Defendant E’s assertion 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court, while explaining in detail the grounds for its judgment on the back of the “a summary of evidence” column, was aware of the Defendant’s act of similarity.

The decision was determined.

A under the second investigation conducted by the prosecution, was used from April 2015 to operate a commercial sex acts business establishment in which "AJ has been operated."

D and E (Defendants) became an employee through the job offer advertising site.

D. The same shall apply to a person who was unaware of the fact that he/she is a sexual traffic business establishment.

The statement was made to the effect that it did not speak at the inside. The third prosecutor's investigation was conducted, and it was stated to the same effect as "the person operating a commercial sex acts independently without being engaged in the business with B, and AJ was not related to the instant case," and "the person was aware of the fact that the act of similarity was done in return for money by engaging in work at D and E low-income business," and "the first person did not talk about the act of similarity, but there was a case where the act of similarity is performed in the course of performing the work."

It is rather necessary for the prosecutor to ask questions to the effect that the statement was made in detail to the effect that the statement was made differently from the previous statement, and rather, it is doubtful of the credibility of the statement.